Friday, April 25, 2014

Right-wing feminism is equally odious in Norway

Last year in Norway, the ruling leftist coalition lost the election and their government was replaced by a coalition of so-called right-wing parties. I didn't vote for them, or at all, because I knew they would merely replace socialism with fascism. In past elections I always voted for the Progress Party (Frp) in the belief that they would be a lesser evil, but now I understand there is no such thing. Their authoritarian, police-loving, man-hating views simply cannot be excused even if their economic policy is slightly less oppressive, and now the results of their hateful ideology are starting to manifest themselves. While the new government did decrease the income tax by one percentage point and repealed the death tax, on men's rights they are in fact worse than the old socialists.

The scumbags in the Norwegian legislature, fully supported by the new government, have abolished the statute of limitations on sex crimes, even victimless sex crimes like consensual sex with young teenagers, setting the stage for witch-hunts on old men just like the Savile hysteria in Britain. They didn't yet make it retroactive, so it will take a while for this to bear fruit, but it certainly proves that the Progress Party consists of even more odious feminist scumbags than the Labor Party, and I hate their guts equally profoundly. If anything, minister of justice Anders Anundsen from the Progress Party is a more despicable person than any of his predecessors.

Thus the march of misandry continues, regardless of which party is voted into power. All political parties in Norway, without exception, represent hatred against men. None of them deserve our vote, and all of them deserve our utmost contempt.

So much for partisan politics, but there is one voice of reason amid all the misandry. Synnøve Brattlie is a psychiatrist making surprisingly lucid statements about rape law. She points out that women are not served well by a dishonestly expansive definition of rape with escalating punishments. She believes that when every woman who has her regrets after sex is defined as a rape victim and the hateful machinery of the state is maximally supportive in having the man convicted and locked up for many years even though the woman shares equal blame for the sexual encounter, then this may do more harm than good to women. Or to honest women, at any rate. In her clinical experience, the dishonest and hateful nature of rape investigations and trials on the part of the feminist state also messes with women's psychology, because the entire point of the proceedings is to perpetuate a lie. In the current system, there is no such thing as bad or regretted sex, or men simply acting like jerks -- everything is rape if the woman has any negative feelings about it whatsoever, so women are not allowed to be honest about their sexual experiences. This realization is progress and very similar to what I have been saying for ten years now, except as usual in public discourse, only the woman's point of view is taken into account. We have now reached the point where in the opinion of at least one psychiatrist, rape law is hurting women because it is too expansive and draconian, so feminist rape law reforms should be reversed to help women. I doubt our hateful legislators will listen to this point of view either, however.

Yes, truth and justice have very little to do with anything, and least of all with regard to politicians. Just about everything they say and do is contrived in order to gain more power for themselves and their interest groups. We might just call it that, but misandry is a particularly pernicious sort of justification for power that is worth identifying and fighting on its own, in my opinion. Accusing rape is one of the most effective ways imaginable to gain power, so it is no wonder feminists and politicians and the rest of the abuse industry are always trying to expand the definition.

"Whether it is the weeping of victims, an article in a newspaper or the machinations of a government department, perceiving what you see as a quest for power seems to be the best key for unlocking the truth behind what is really going on."

But he also has a solution:

"The Big Solution, therefore, is to arrange matters so that people can only acquire power by doing good. And then it doesn't matter so much if power is their aim."

Not sure how realistic this is in practice though, but it is worth aiming for.

Eivind: It sounds like Norway's political parties are about what they are here in the US. Basically here, the Left enacts radical programs and policies while in power. The Right comes to power, complains a lot but doesn't change anything. Then the cycle repeats.

Things don't change in the US because the partisans of both factions are fanatics who hate each other---even though they're working for the same ends. Anyone who tries to come up with actually workable solutions is either derided as a 'moderate' or denounced as an 'extremist' depending on how much the idea deviates from institutional Political Correctness.

It looks like a good thing about US politics that your parties hate each other so much that it is very difficult to get anything done. Norwegian politics is too congenial, with almost no disagreement about fundamental issues, so insidious policies such as feminism are easily implemented. I wish our politicians would hate each other more and sabotage each other's agendas instead of embracing them and embellishing on them whenever they get the chance.

Eivind: True, but the downside to it is that, once bad laws and policies like feminism get established, they're almost impossible to repeal or revoke because of the same antagonism. Sometimes, the issues get deferred to Courts, which are just as partisan.

Indeed, nothing is to be expected from the Right. France's Marine Le Pen, though still labelled "extreme right" by political opponents, has in fact embraced all the prejudices of the mainstream. What is left in her platform is some kind of anti-immigration, anti EU stance. What good is that? I think the reason political parties end up being misandric is because men overwhelmingly support misandry. They see misandry as directed first and foremost against other men. Their minds are locked in anti-male mode. They welcome any anti-male legislation because they think in terms of eliminating other men, not in terms of maximizing opportunities for all men. The modus operandi of human Societies is men fighting men while women comfortably watch on the side-lines. Men either face death on the battle fields or, in peacetime, arrest and jail. As a man, you die at the hands of the enemy if there's a war on, or at the hands of the police or fellow inmates if there's no war on. Brute force is the only thing that pays in the end. Men's motto is "glad it ain't me, serves the other bloke right!"

Obama also recently repealed the Anti-Propaganda Act of 1948 and included provisions in the Defense Authorization Act of 2013 that allows the government almost unprecedented powers to disseminate propaganda and disinformation on the Internet. This FCC ruling abilities to counteract any of that.

"The Big Solution, therefore, is to arrange matters so that people can only acquire power by doing good. And then it doesn't matter so much if power is their aim." (Angy Harry)

This can't work because the definition of "good" is itself widely open to abuse. Some author coined the apt phrase "The Empire of Good" ("l'Empire du Bien). Another Frenchman (Houellebecq) wrote to the effect that "humanitarian work" was often code word for the worst shit imaginable.

Some days ago I commented on a newspaper article about rape. I wrote among other things that men were overwhelmingly the victims of rape considering rape in prison. I was voted down and mocked ... by men. It simply delights men to think other men are raped in jail. Or that any men are raped at all. Sad

"I wrote among other things that men were overwhelmingly the victims of rape considering rape in prison. I was voted down and mocked ... by men. It simply delights men to think other men are raped in jail. Or that any men are raped at all. Sad"

I agree Eivind, and man will be wolf to man, especially to fellow men who have broken the rules, or 'cheated', when it comes to sex.

Although the 'sex offenders deserve no mercy' attitude is likely a hard-wired male response to any man seen as 'cheating' and getting more pussy than he would if obeyed the common rules, partly its also to do with paedocrisy and the desire to publicly deflect any suspicion that they themselves are 'cheaters' or sex offenders or 'paedophiles'.

In other words, it's a survial mechanism that is almost required for any man in a society in which feminism, with the mass support of women, has created such a climate of fear and suspicion that any man could be accused of being a sex monster.

And regards Jack's specific point about political parties wanting to appeal to the misandry of men, that's no doubt true to an extent, but surely its more pertinant that male politicians are chasing the floating female vote that is commonly acknowledged to decide most democratic elections in the Western world these days, and are consciously appealing to female voters in particular when they announce new misandristic laws to 'protect women and children'?

I don't think chasing the female vote is so critically important for winning elections in Norway. Because there are so many parties, no party can get a clear majority anyway, so Norwegian politics is all about coalitions rather than winner-takes-all. It would be possible to gain quite a bit of power in Norwegian politics by catering to antifeminist voters, if such a niche existed. Nonetheless, all the parties are explicitly feminist and all try to outdo each other in passing the most hateful sex laws. This leads me to believe that the mangina vote is just as influential as the vagina vote, and there is no hope for a men's movement whatsoever. Our only bet is to wait and hope for the collapse of civilization instead, and meanwhile the misandry will only escalate. I also think the abuse industry and prosecutors will increasingly prey on women too, and this won't change a thing either. At this point we live in an age of so stunningly pervasive sex-hostility that it can only be made evident to most people in retrospect, I think. Pointing out misandry and sex-hostility feels like explaining to fish that they live in water. The sexual victim cult is so ingrained in the fabric of our society now that the whole putrid edifice needs to come undone before there is any hope. Try to explain to any person in our society that there is nothing wrong with having sex with a thirteen-year-old, say, or that rape isn't simply sex without consent, and 99% of the time they are so brainwashed that it is impossible to even engage them in rational conversation about it. And sadly yes, this even includes most men. I look forward to the day when people will be more concerned with keeping hunger at bay than locking up supposed sexual abusers, because nothing less than a shock to our basic needs can jolt us out of this mass-psychosis of feminist sex-hostility.

I want to point out that blaming the vagina vote (instead of blaming men's support of misandry) only begs the question. Why the vagina vote and not the "dick vote"?

Like Eivind, I lean to utter pessimism regarding the men's movement. Men are simply and stupidly hard-wired to gang-up on any men seen as getting pussy. In fact the thought of any other man getting pussy is intolerable to most men, except strangely when they're wanking to porn. In traditional Societies people kept sex to themselves. It was a taboo and that's what it should have remained. In the information age sex is out of the bag, men are not equipped for this and they see red everywhere. Men can only spend their time in either one of two ways: chasing pussy or preventing other men from getting it. The take home point is that men are flawed creatures. Women are too of course, but men are so to a much more self-defeating extent.

Indeed once civilization crumbles, people will have to come back to basics (revert to survival mode). Women will come back to men humbled, and will have to trade sex for basic work only men can do. Until then the surpluses generated by technology will increasingly go towards orchestrating persecutions against men.

"In fact the thought of any other man getting pussy is intolerable to most men, except strangely when they're wanking to porn."

Because in that case the male porn star is merely seen as a stand-in for the male viewer and not considered as a person at all. Wanking to porn is a maladaptive behavior men are prone to because our brains haven't adapted to distinguishing pixels from real women, another detrimental effect of technology which separates men further from actually getting pussy and having healthy sexual relationships with women. Not only that, but men are also easily persuaded to persecute other men even just for watching porn if the content is deemed unacceptable by feminists.

Why did men invent all this technology to harm and oppress themselves? Something went horribly wrong somewhere, quite possibly as early as the invention of agriculture. That was the end of leisure and the start of enabling real oppression. The good news is that none of it is sustainable.

Elliot Rodger looks kind of like an apolitical younger version of me. Although I don't feel that way anymore, I do of course fully understand how involuntary celibacy leads to homicidal rage.

He seems a bit entitled though, perhaps even narcissistic, and not politically aware. Political enlightenment tends to lead to violence against system enforcers rather than random people. It's a shame he seems unaware of MRA issues and doesn't articulate an antifeminist position.

He is basing his entire rampage on the fact that girls aren't attracted to him. He has realized girls don't like a "supreme gentleman" like him but instead "throw themselves at obnoxious men." Unfortunately, his first obnoxious act is a rampage. It would have been wiser to try to mimic the behavior of the obnoxious men who do get laid instead (learn game), but I understand it can be hard to break the belief that girls ought to like nice guys.

Omegas aren't as harmless as they look. There is a lot of rage and hatred seething under the surface. Male virgins past a certain age are the lowest of the low, and there is good reason to fear them. Virginity means literally everything they tried has failed, and then violence starts to look like a highly compelling option, probably for deep evolutionary reasons. After all, they face genetic extinction and have nothing left to lose. Violence is indeed a healthy way to react in that situation, although it is not the optimal one in the current environment.

You are right, at least to some extent he was politically aware, and an antifeminist:

https://twitter.com/MatthewKeysLive/status/470220031708508161/photo/1

But now it is emerging that he was allegedly afflicted with Asperger's syndrome. In that case he had a major handicap beyond the incel issues. That makes it more complicated, but still his basic rage is understandable. As far as I know, being autistic is not a sufficient explanation for violence, so the politics still probably apply.

According to Amnesty, it is a "human right" for women to have even more men imprisoned for false rape, based on the radical feminist definition that rape is merely sex without consent, with no force or coercion needed. Watching the process of legislative creep in the legal concept of rape is the main cause of my radicalization into a men's rights activist, so you can imagine how much I hate the guts of the scumbags in Amnesty. They want to go even further than the radical feminist definition already on the books.

When I was in prison for exercising my freedom of speech, Amnesty did nothing, because they are not concerned with real injustice. They are too busy supporting unfair laws which will put more men in prison. To them, radical feminism equals "human rights" while men are worthless. They are truly vile scumbags. If you are a man, any money you give them will be used to promote further hatred against yourself. So don't be so stupid. In addition to pushing the radical feminist definition of rape, they also regularly produce hateful and misleading propaganda depicting ordinary Norwegian men as wife-beaters and agitating for more misandric laws related to domestic violence as well.

I wish the half dozen sex positive bloggers would unite and collaborate. I wish you stopped over and commented at Human-Stupidity.com, at the topics that relate to your interests.

Of course, also at theAntiFeminist, as long as you don't get blocked like I do, for making comments slightly critical of his party line.

You can register so you get emails whenever I have a new post. A lively discussion is very positive for a blog.

I also invite people like you to actually author articles, I can give you a login if you desire.

Look at AVoiceForMen. Full of very valuable contributors, like Warren Farrell and Erin Pizzey. They are getting almost as good as the feminists, and I believe they have a lot of good points. Except MHRA clueless about sex laws: AvoiceForMen victimizes boys which would deserve your comments.

It is shocking how Amnesty international and ACLU got corrupted. They used to stand up for the rights of everyone, including of Nazis to walk through Black or Jewish Neighborhoods.

Seems they really want White Europeans to stop procreating. Or do you think this is an unintended side effect?

It would be interesting if Black Ghetto culture cares much about these rape definitions. Of course, lots of Black will go to prison because they get ensnared in date rape laws.

But I would imagine that many simple people of all races don't even know about these absurd laws, don't believe they are true, and don't have the self discipline to refuse sex when offered by jail-bait or drunk women. Just watch the teenage pregnancy rate, in many states all these children are the product of "rape"

I wonder if this has much influence on Black or Muslim culture in Norway.

Hi, what a great forum this is and I want to applaud the help that was rendered to my Husband. I send my love and prayers to all who have come here for help. I'd like to request a prayer for Rick Simpson and to Dr. David who have cured my Husband of his lung cancer. He was diagnosed about 3 year ago, beat it once and then a few months later it came back in his brain. We have been doing everything possibly, medication wise, and now the cancer seems to be immune to chemotherapy and radiation. The doctor talks about this being his last year of life, so I feel like he has lost hope but i didn't. after several online search, I found Cannabis oil so i decided to give it a try and i ordered for it, as soon my Husband started his treatment and to God be the glory I didn't lose my lovely husband to lungs cancer anymore. So i'm here to share this testimony to the world at large as my Husband has been saved by the Cannabis Oil, contact Dr David if you have problem relating to cancer and other diseases Email: ricksimpsonmedicalcenter@outlook.com , Tel: +16194786459